ISSUE-118
bNode semantics
RESOLVED: Should bNodes in OWL 2 DL have existential or skolem semantics?
- State:
- CLOSED
- Product:
- Raised by:
- Michael Schneider
- Opened on:
- 2008-04-20
- Description:
At the F2F2 we have decided to introduce bNodes for individuals in class assertions and property assertions. But we deferred the question which semantics such bNodes should have: "RESOLVED: Resolve Issue 3 and Issue 46, accepting Boris's proposal (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Mar/0008.html) only in terms of the syntax of bnodes, and open a new issue on the semantics of bnodes, [...]" (see: <http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/F2F2_Minutes#Issue_3_.26_Issue_46_anonymous_individuals_.2F_Unnamed_Individual_Restrictions>) Since this issue has not yet been raised, and since there exists ACTION-132 w.r.t. this non-raised issue, I hereby raise it.
- Related Actions Items:
- No related actions
- Related emails:
- Agenda TC 03/09/2008 (from hector.perez-urbina@comlab.ox.ac.uk on 2008-09-02)
- Re: ACTION-203 done (resolution of ISSUE-118 - semantics of anonymous individuals) (from bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk on 2008-08-29)
- Re: ACTION-203 done (resolution of ISSUE-118 - semantics of anonymous individuals) (from alanruttenberg@gmail.com on 2008-08-29)
- Re: ACTION-203 done (resolution of ISSUE-118 - semantics of anonymous individuals) (from bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk on 2008-08-28)
- Re: ACTION-203 done (resolution of ISSUE-118 - semantics of anonymous individuals) (from alanruttenberg@gmail.com on 2008-08-28)
- RE: ACTION-203 done (resolution of ISSUE-118 - semantics of anonymous individuals) (from boris.motik@comlab.ox.ac.uk on 2008-08-28)
- Re: ACTION-203 done (resolution of ISSUE-118 - semantics of anonymous individuals) (from alanruttenberg@gmail.com on 2008-08-28)
- ACTION-203 done (resolution of ISSUE-118 - semantics of anonymous individuals) (from boris.motik@comlab.ox.ac.uk on 2008-08-27)
- RE: Proposal to resolve ISSUE-118 (anonymous individual semantics) (from boris.motik@comlab.ox.ac.uk on 2008-08-20)
- Proposal to resolve ISSUE-118 (anonymous individual semantics) (from boris.motik@comlab.ox.ac.uk on 2008-08-20)
- ISSUE-118 (bNode semantics): Should bNodes in OWL 2 DL have existential or skolem semantics? (from sysbot+tracker@w3.org on 2008-04-20)
Related notes:
2008-04-23 03:34:48: Accepted per discussion Ian and Alan [Alan Ruttenberg]
2008-08-28 11:56:12: Resolved as per http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Aug/0188.html
See http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/meeting/2008-08-27#resolution_3 and
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Aug/0276.html
[Ian Horrocks]
Display change log